• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The Real Reason Why Bands Play the Same Old Tired Covers

The real reasons why cover bands play the same old tired covers:

-too busy with work/school/family
-easy for everyone to get up to speed, add members
-impossible to schedule rehearsals due to scheduling conflicts
-member unavailability issues; travel/health/job
-spousal interference
-band is happy with repertoire

In a band context, any one of those above reasons could be interchanged with "laziness," for the most part. "Too busy" doing anything other than the band still is the same as laziness, at least in regards to the band.
 
In a band context, any one of those above reasons could be interchanged with "laziness," for the most part. "Too busy" doing anything other than the band still is the same as laziness, at least in regards to the band.
Not so sure about the "laziness" aspect, but there are [definitely] those who would label anything on the list as "lack of commitment"!
I'd view the list as more of the latter since other things going on may have nothing to do with the individual being lazy.
Yeah, I know, splitting hairs.. but [shrug].. not learning a song 'cus you only had 2 days and one of those nights was spent at the kids football game does not (IMHO) equate to being lazy. Commitment maybe, but not lazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC
I would never argue that there are no lazy musicians. I've been in bands with plenty of them. My objection is your placing all of us who do not add songs at YOUR pace into the "lazy" category.

Your OP went to great lengths to prove that all stagnation is a result of laziness, but it never hinted that there might be other reasons why people don't add songs at a pace that YOU determined is okay. And you've been proven wrong over and over by members who have posted their very valid reasons for not adding songs.

I have no quarrel with the fact that there are lazy musicians, only with the implication that everyone different than you is lazy.
You are reading too much into it.

I never said it had to be at MY pace. My pace can be pretty ludicrous at times, so I don't expect that at all unless it's someone that I know is capable of that. We each have our own speed and life priorities.

And this thread isn't about me or my standards, and there's no need to direct the discussion there. My standards certainly are not universal. I don't know where you read that, because I certainly never implied that or meant to. If people prove me wrong, that's fine. That's what discussion is about. There's people who agree too, but we all have our own situations. And in my experience, working with capable, professional musicians, the main cause for people defaulting to standards is laziness. Your mileage may vary, and that makes for an interesting discussion. If you're thinking I'm acting all authoritative, you need not think that because people can read plenty of my posts where I'm proven wrong. I've been married for 15 years, I'm used to being wrong.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marmadaddy
This is just a series of excuses!!! nothing more. If you're in a garage band then who cares. If you wanna be in a working band then (as was stated earlier) step up; step out, or be fired. If you are "too busy" to be in a working project then be honest about it. No reason to hold others back because of your personal issues.

I book 99% of the gigs my band plays and all involved in the project where given the terms of acceptability from the start. Songs are selected in advance, rehearsals are scheduled in advance. Yes, occasionally life happens and that's OK. But, if you fail to meet expectations on a regular basis you are gone. Learn the material in the time allotted, show up prepared on a regular basis or deal with the inevitable.

Excuses are just that...excuses!




The real reasons why cover bands play the same old tired covers:

-too busy with work/school/family
-easy for everyone to get up to speed, add members
-impossible to schedule rehearsals due to scheduling conflicts
-member unavailability issues; travel/health/job
-spousal interference
-band is happy with repertoire
-venue(s) are happy with repertoire
-audiences are happy with repertoire
-genre known by standards (jazz, bluegrass)
-band unaware of need to diversify/unable to diversify
-lazy musicians
-more??

I have worked with people in almost every one of those categories, and most of them are valid reasons for not adding songs at a brisk pace. More often than not, IME anyway, laziness was never a big cause. It was usually scheduling problems or simple ignorance, the band was too dumb to know better.

I really didn't mean to rile you up Jive it's simply that there are many more reasons for band stagnation than just laziness.
 
I don't buy into the we play these songs because that is what everyone wants to hear argument. My current band was started with the stated intent to do songs that are different than everyone else around here and since we have been playing out are finding ourselves in demand more and more because people WANT to hear something else. The problem I find most often is that guitarists are the ones that seem to be stuck in a rut and don't want to progress past what they've been playing for 30 years. So many classic rock bands in this area and so many of them aren't very good.
 
This is just a series of excuses!!! nothing more. If you're in a garage band then who cares. If you wanna be in a working band then (as was stated earlier) step up; step out, or be fired. If you are "too busy" to be in a working project then be honest about it. No reason to hold others back because of your personal issues.

I book 99% of the gigs my band plays and all involved in the project where given the terms of acceptability from the start. Songs are selected in advance, rehearsals are scheduled in advance. Yes, occasionally life happens and that's OK. But, if you fail to meet expectations on a regular basis you are gone. Learn the material in the time allotted, show up prepared on a regular basis or deal with the inevitable.

Excuses are just that...excuses!

Yep, thats pretty much a requirement in my band too. Do Your Homework or you wont last long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWBass
it's simply that there are many more reasons for band stagnation than just laziness.

I disagree.

I was in a cover band with some friends for the best part of 7 years. In the last 4 years or so we barely added any new song to the repertoire, and instead stuck to the same 15 - 20 songs we'd always played. However, we had rehearsals at least 3x per month, and those rehearsals became less and less productive.

What was the reason for this lack of productivity? Our singer/rhythm guitarist. He'd always have an excuse ready:

"Didn't have time to learn the song, man. But I can play this one!"
"Yeah no, I just can't reach those notes. Let's do this song."
"Man, I had a terrible week at work so I didn't learn the songs we agreed to. Can we play this one instead?"

The dude had a set of songs he knew, and would always default back to those. He'd have tons of excuses week after week. If I could go back now I would start to systematically cancel rehearsals, cos guess what? That frees up a few hours in which you can learn a song or two. And I am positive that if I had effectively cancelled all rehearsals until he learned ONE tune which wasn't already on his repertoire, the band would have folded years before it ultimately did.

Most of the excuses which members come up with for not learning a tune, are just that: excuses for not learning a tune. And as for the audience being happy with the repertoire: by the end of that particular band, even my best friend (who is the singer's brother) didn't bother showing up anymore. You can only rearrange a 15-song set list so many times before people start to notice you're always playing the same songs ...
 
I disagree.

I was in a cover band with some friends for the best part of 7 years. In the last 4 years or so we barely added any new song to the repertoire, and instead stuck to the same 15 - 20 songs we'd always played. However, we had rehearsals at least 3x per month, and those rehearsals became less and less productive.

What was the reason for this lack of productivity? Our singer/rhythm guitarist. He'd always have an excuse ready:

"Didn't have time to learn the song, man. But I can play this one!"
"Yeah no, I just can't reach those notes. Let's do this song."
"Man, I had a terrible week at work so I didn't learn the songs we agreed to. Can we play this one instead?"

The dude had a set of songs he knew, and would always default back to those. He'd have tons of excuses week after week. If I could go back now I would start to systematically cancel rehearsals, cos guess what? That frees up a few hours in which you can learn a song or two. And I am positive that if I had effectively cancelled all rehearsals until he learned ONE tune which wasn't already on his repertoire, the band would have folded years before it ultimately did.

Most of the excuses which members come up with for not learning a tune, are just that: excuses for not learning a tune. And as for the audience being happy with the repertoire: by the end of that particular band, even my best friend (who is the singer's brother) didn't bother showing up anymore. You can only rearrange a 15-song set list so many times before people start to notice you're always playing the same songs ...

I see you've met my first band's singer.

One thing that really drove me to practice and improve was that I never ever wanted to be the guy in rehearsal to say, "I can't play that song."
 
  • Like
Reactions: TinIndian
TL:DR

In my last cover band, our mission statement was to find those songs that everyone in the audience knew, loved and would dance to, but hadn't heard in years, especially by cover bands. We were very successful with this formula.
Some of these songs, clearly, were regional - some of them are probably played to death in parts of the US, but I'm in Australia so that changes everything:

Echo Beach - Martha and the Muffins
And We Danced - The Hooters
Shake Your Body - Jackson 5
Joy To The World - 3 Dog Night
Breakout - Swing Out Sister
Lean On Me - Red Box
Adams Apple - Aerosmith
Stay - Oingo Boingo

Etc etc.
We just sought out songs that maybe only reached number 3 or 4 on the charts, or asked ourselves what was a popular bands next most famous song etc. It very much worked and we were always working.
The idea behind it, which really worked, was to watch the faces on the crowd - it was great fun to watch them go from "*** is this" to the dim memory dawning, light up their eyes and watch the delight as they shake it down!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ender_rpm
Absolutely not, unless you want to write songs that sound just like the covers you are playing. I can learn a 40 song set list of hit tunes in one day. There is no way I could write 40 songs that people will like in that time. I can't even write 1 song that I'm satisfied with in a month. I've never had a band tell me to write 5 songs and have them ready for the next gig. Learning a set of music can take hours or days, where writing a great album can take years.

There are guys who write songs really well who aren't great performers, and they write music for others. There are composers who never play live in front of an audience, ever. Heck, there are lyricists who can't play an instrument at all.



I wholly disagree.
The main discussion is about learning tunes, not writing them.
There's discussion about recognizable songs. Songs by local original bands don't qualify.
There's talk about weddings, corporates, etc. Original bands rarely, if ever get hired for those.
There are some bars that won't ever hire an original band, and some that won't ever hire a cover band.
There is no talk about publishing, credits, distribution, etc. or anything that is specific to an original band.

I don't understand why there are some that always have to turn a discussion into a covers vs originals. IMO, it's really lame. There's plenty of threads that cater specifically to original bands, and those that cater to cover bands. Obviously, this thread is geared towards covers.

It's like when people are talking about pickles, and someone wants to talk about their penis because they both start with P and are shaped the same. It's like a vegetarian trying to proselytize at a meat lovers convention, or someone walking into a packed football bar and insisting that the owner puts on ice skating. IMO, there's something really anti-social about that. People have different paths to joy and prosperity, and if you found your path, that's great. There's no need to question other's paths. If you don't have anything relevant to add, that's OK. No-one around here is getting paid by post count.
No your way of the mark. Just the response you gave shows that your not on the same page. It's all about creativity.
 
TL:DR

In my last cover band, our mission statement was to find those songs that everyone in the audience knew, loved and would dance to, but hadn't heard in years, especially by cover bands. We were very successful with this formula.
Some of these songs, clearly, were regional - some of them are probably played to death in parts of the US, but I'm in Australia so that changes everything:

Echo Beach - Martha and the Muffins
And We Danced - The Hooters
Shake Your Body - Jackson 5
Joy To The World - 3 Dog Night
Breakout - Swing Out Sister
Lean On Me - Red Box
Adams Apple - Aerosmith
Stay - Oingo Boingo

Etc etc.
We just sought out songs that maybe only reached number 3 or 4 on the charts, or asked ourselves what was a popular bands next most famous song etc. It very much worked and we were always working.
The idea behind it, which really worked, was to watch the faces on the crowd - it was great fun to watch them go from "*** is this" to the dim memory dawning, light up their eyes and watch the delight as they shake it down!


I've done the same thing and it is a great way to go about putting a different set list together no matter what type of music your band is playing. For instance instead of playing Tom Petty Breakdown or American Girl play Dont Do me Like that or another one of his songs that dont normally get covered. You can do that with most every band.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10cc
If you are talking about my post you may have misunderstood. I was talking about doing cover songs I like and not worrying about the clubs or money or whatever. Not doing originals. More of a concert setting. Come and listen. Not necessarily a club or dance setting.

Hope that clears it up. I think pertains to the topic - although maybe a little off center.
I totally understood what your saying. Even if you wanted to play whatever by whomever. Play what makes you happy first.
 
You need not read more into what I say than what I write. If you truly love playing that stuff, fine. But, if you default to it because you didn't bother learning new material that's another thing.

I never said that there is anything wrong with playing standards. It's when you default to it, rather than learning to play something that might be more interesting, more audience oriented, etc. is where the laziness comes in.

Like I said in my OP and in other posts, I'm mainly talking about this type of scenario:
At rehearsal/band meeting/etc: "Hey, let's learn We are the Night for the next gig. The bar owner said that song goes over well with his crowd"
At the gig: "Hey, let's play that Blake Sheldon tune we agreed on" and the guitarist says, "I didn't learn that one, how about we play Mustang Sally instead?"
How many other musicians who play in working cover bands can attest to this scenario happening? My guess, every single one of us on this thread had this happen at one time or another. Considering the user base here spans the globe, and levels of performance, and we've all dealt with this situation, you can see how alot of 'standards' become prevalent in the cover scene.
Your gonna play songs that the bar owner suggests?
 
The cover band I'm in now is by far the best paid cover band I've been in. Having said that, a lot of the stuff listed is what we play. Why? Because it keeps patrons in the bar until closing. That's what the owner pays us to do. Sure we slip in 3-4 originals a night and a couple wild card songs. But, the songs you listed are what people are buying. I've played the obscure songs, guess what.... Chicks don't dig them. If you want paid.. Keep the chicks there dancing and drinking. If you don't want paid, then don't worry about song selection. Just my opinion. Not worth much, but there it is.
 
Not quite the same, but similar--when I used to teach guitar (And a bit of bass) we had a yearly festival where various music schools had students perform and get scored, and prizes given.
After the first year I knew about 7 or 8 songs that another teacher's students would play--every year and about the same that were there every other year.

Rather than come up with new stuff he gave students the same old stuff over & over--I think it was to save time.
The more advanced students had more variety--and they probably had more say in what they played.

I allowed students to pick songs--unless they picked something that wouldn't work well for the festival.
I did make suggestions if a student didn't know what to pick-and I did have the final say on the bands--where I picked most of the songs--with input from the students (One student once said he wanted to do something new, like Jimi Hendrix (He had just discovered Hendrix--that band did a Hendrix medley--and it sounded great)
I did get comments about how some of the other teachers had students who sounded like cookie cutters, and mine all sounded like themselves--even the ones that weren't that good. One of my main goals was for them to develop their own style.

So I got bored with that one teacher and his repetitive songs.
 
The real reason why bands play the same old tired covers? Lazy musicians. Over the years, I have been surprised at how many musicians cannot put in the time to learn a tune. It could be that they don't have time, don't have the ability, don't want to learn one for whatever reason, think they can wing it, etc. But, in the end, they don't learn the tune, so we have to punt and do a tired-old cover instead because everyone already knows it.

There's lots of older, experienced musicians who still play the same stuff that they played decades ago and think that Bon Jovi is modern rock. There's guys who think they can wing it, and it can work until you get the bridge that follows a different chord progression. There's guys who think a song is just 3 chords, so they don't bother to learn the harmonies, dynamic changes, etc. because they think it's easy. Yes, it's easy, but you can still suck at it. There's players who don't even touch their instrument outside of a practice or gig. And I can go on and on about the various issues, but it still comes down to effort, and there's lots of musicians who won't put in the effort.

Luckily, in my current band through some lineup changes, we have folks who will actually learn a tune. What I've learned is that there's lots of covers that aren't being played that go over well. It's just that you need to spend a little time listening to the tune and learning it. And it's usually not a tune you learned in the garage 20 years ago. No-one specifically requests Brown Eyed Girl, Mustang Sally, Sweet Home Alabama, and lots of other tired covers from my band. Although we could do those tunes, none of them go over as well as the songs that lots of cover bands don't do that we do such as 'Impression That I Get' by the Bosstones or Reel Big Fish's version of 'Take On Me'.

And outside of my band, I've seen several examples too. Although 'American Girl' and 'Free Falling' by Tom Petty go over well, so does 'Running Down a Dream', 'Don't Do Me Like That', and 'The Waiting'. The way bands cover Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Skynyrd, and other iconic Classic Rock Bands, you'd think they only had 2-3 hit songs. But they actually had a bunch of them, but too many bands gravitate towards the 1-2 easiest songs they do. And even though Steely Dan had a bunch of radio hits, very few bands play their material because it takes some effort to learn. Actually, there's lots of hit songs that would go over well that are left on the table because people won't bother learning it.

Musicians put a lot of blame on the audiences, and sure they are part of the equation, but I don't buy it that it's the majority of the problem. The tired covers are like McDonalds, people eat there because it's convenient, cheap, and they know what to expect. But, it's rarely their favorite place to eat. I've heard plenty of musicians complain about apathetic audiences, but if you're being lazy and apathetic, they will pick up on that. Expecting audiences to be passionate about your apathy is pretty narcissistic and unrealistic, IMO. Although I've seen some non-tired covers clear a floor, I've seen so many of them work out well that I feel they are worthwhile doing. A song can be a hit, recognizable, and easy to dance to without being one that every band does.

In addition to lazy musicians, lazy and unimaginative promoters and booking agents contribute to the phenomena I call "same band, different name". Booking agents especially tend to be more conservative in their dealings and are loathe to take risks. For example, even though Modern Country has become mainstream and audiences are craving it, most booking agents will book another 80s-90s Rock cover band over a solid Country act.

Anyway, that's my rant.

Have you met my guitarist? Because your statement above describes him, (experienced player not too agreeable to learn new material
 

Latest posts